Paying the price for following the rules

It cannot be right that one of the member states that has been the most diligent in implementing new European Union rules on animal welfare is the one whose customers and retailers end up paying the highest price. Yet that is what poor enforcement of hen-welfare regulations has allowed – and, unless the European Commission takes a much firmer approach, the same may happen again with pigs next year.

In 1999, the EU pledged to ban battery cages, with the legislation – the directive on the welfare of laying hens – coming into force on 1 January this year. Member states therefore had years to make all their egg production compliant.

In the UK, compliance was near-universal. Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden also made progress. But in some member states there appears to have been a view that the Commission was not all that concerned about compliance, that it would make concess-ions, and that, if the deadline was missed, there would be little consequence.

The Commission did not do much to put them right on that. Indeed, the impression I have is that suppliers sat up and took notice mainly when UK retailers and manufacturers told suppliers elsewhere in the EU: “We’re going to need more compliant eggs because the law is changing.”

Even so, a large part of the EU’s egg production remains non-compliant. There are not enough compliant eggs to meet demand, and prices have rocketed since the directive came into force.

In the UK, this is not primarily about eggs in their shells, since most customers choose eggs from free-range hens, even though these are pricier. Rather, the problem is with ‘liquid egg’, which is used as an ingredient in everything from cakes to ice cream. Immediately after the directive came into force, the price of liquid egg soared, to twice the price of a year earlier. That put upward pressure on the prices on cakes and other food products.

When the Commission became aware there was a problem, it relaxed the rules to allow illegal eggs to be sold on domestic markets as long as they were not exported. So customers in non-compliant countries, such as Belgium, Portugal and Romania, have not suffered comparable price rises. Since Easter, prices have stabilised, but the market is watching anxiously to see what the Commission does – or does not do – next.

What we have seen is a perverse example of those who invest in doing the right thing being put at a competitive disadvantage. It does nothing to help producers who comply. It does nothing to help retailers who want to stock compliant eggs and products made from them.

The Commission’s role cannot just be to add legislation to the statute book. It also has obligations as a policeman and prosecutor. It needs to ensure that legislation is implemented. Rather than giving in to non-compliant operators, the Commission should be putting pressure on them – and doing it now. This would increase the number of eggs that meet the rules and would bring prices down for consumers.

In six months’ time, similar legislation on pig welfare will come into force, with rules on the confinement of sows in stalls being tightened.

Again, it seems that many farms – in, for example, Italy, Spain and central and eastern Europe – will not have switched methods in time.

The Commission must not make the same mistakes again. It must tell these producers that they will not be able to sell any meat from these systems, either on their home markets or as exports.

It needs to be clear that if such meat is traded, infraction proceedings will follow. Any other approach creates a cheats’ charter and undermines respect for law and lawmakers.

Stephen Robertson is director-general of the British Retail Consortium.